Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009


Comments in response "in-line" below for context.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> Rigsbee, Everett O
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
> Carl,  
> I have just completed a very lengthy and intensive negotiation process
> with the London hotels that were looking to assess a very 
> large penalty
> on us for failing to meet required pick-up for our January Session
> because after "Overwhelming Support" for the London meeting at the SEC
> and our signing contracts for a full plenary type session, two of our
> larger WGs decided to boycott that meeting and we were left 
> holding the
> bag.  We were very lucky that time that I was able to 
> extricate us from
> that mess with a substantially reduced penalty payment ($25K).  We may
> not be nearly as lucky next time.  With the possibility of penalties
> that could literally bankrupt our treasury looming on the horizon I do
> not wish to rush into some nNA deal unless I have some assurance from
> each of the WGs that we will not have a repeat of what happened in
> London.  That is my job; it is what I am not getting paid to do, and I
> will do it as I see fit.  We DO need to be careful here to not put
> ourselves in jeopardy and I am trying my best to do that.  It does not
> help to have you accusing me of trying to sabotage the nNA venue.  I
> just want to be really sure that we do have solid support for 
> paying the
> 2x costs that are required and that all our WGs will participate this
> time.  If I were to do anything less, I would expect a vote 
> from the SEC to remove me from my job for dereliction of duty.

While I didn't have to clean up the mess from London as you did, I
sympathize and appreciate your efforts in that regard.
That was, however, an interim, and while I tried to float a motion that
would have forced the "boycotting" groups to either meet in London as the EC
had specified or forego an interim at an alternate location, as you're aware
that didn't fly (due to a ruling from Paul if I recall correctly ...)

Rome will be a plenary and I don't see how any WG/TAG could "boycott" (as
you put it) an 802 plenary ...

I believe that we need to find a way to do this - and enforce it - so that
accurate projections/budgeting can be done and we don't end up "in a
This will require the will of a majority of the EC ... And I believe that
that will exists. 
> While you may think there is overwhelming support from IEEE-SA for nNA
> venues, I have been receiving strong cautionary messages from IEEE
> Contract Procurement that it is a minefield out there and very easy to
> get your organization into a serious bind with nNA venues.  So I have
> some extra incentive to be especially prudent in pursuing these deals.
> I would hope that you would appreciate that.

I appreciate prudence and was not aware of "strong cautionary messages from
IEEE Contract Procurement" ... Can you share with me (privately is fine, if
you prefer, in my role as a member of the BoG) who is giving you such
cautionary messages?  

Again, I observe that *many* other organizations routinely meet in non-NA
venues as a matter of policy and their normal way of doing business -
apparently without any disastrous consequences.

> So can we please cooperate in trying to be reasonably responsible in
> making this decision and refrain from making inflammatory accusations
> ???  I believe we are all trying to do what is right for the good of
> IEEE-802.  Let's try to work together with that goal in mind, please.

By all means we need to cooperate and make responsible decisions.  And, if
my comments were taken in an offensive way by you, that was not my intention
so please accept my sincere apology for any offense it caused you.

It's just that it seems to me that you've already gotten a solid pro-Rome
reaction from .11, .15., .18, .19, .20, .21, and .22, along with Tony for .1
(.16 was somewhat pro-Rome, but given the "vote as many times as you wish"
approach, it seems that the .16 position is based on a different question
than "Rome or Vancouver?"  I don't recall if Bob Grow has responded for .3
or not. And John responded that he preferred Rome, but had no interim at
which to poll his members.  

To me, that, combined with our policy goal indicates that we should do what
is required to get the best deal possible in Rome and move forward (perhaps
based on earlier pre-registration, earlier steps up in meeting fees, and a
starting point attendance-wise that's conservative with some incentives
negotiated into the contract if we exceed commitments, rather than penalties
if we set the bar too high and fall way short).  There's also the concept
that someone floated about a 2 tier registration fee ... With a "meeting
space and F&B surcharge" for anyone who doesn't book in our room block at
the meeting hotel (as long as space is available, at least).

It seems to me that we need to look at creative ways to make it happen
(recognizing that it's inherently going to cost more), while minimizing the
risks of outrageous penalties.


This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.